Legal system treats animals like objects, not living beings: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani quashed the detention order.

The court said India’s animal protection laws had evolved over time, reflecting changing attitudes towards animal care. It noted that the principles of “ahimsa” (non-violence) and “dharma” (duty) have long shaped Indian thought on the treatment of animals.

The court observed that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was enacted to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering to animals, but the penalties prescribed under the law remained extremely low. It said the law permits fines as little as Rs 10 to Rs 50 for certain acts of cruelty and observed that such low penalties provide little deterrence. The court said the law needs to recognise animal suffering more effectively and replace the “tiny fines” with stricter punishment and heavier penalties.

“While the courts have agreed that animals deserve to live without suffering, the written law has not changed enough yet. For real change to happen, the law needs to officially recognize the animal feelings and replace those tiny fines with strict jail time and heavy penalties,” the court said.

It also noted that the smuggling of bovine animals is not only a criminal offence but it is also an act which hurts the religious sentiments of the large population of India. Such activities, it said, if established against any person, are highly objectionable and have the potential to disturb public tranquillity. “…therefore, the law enforcement agencies are expected to deal with such offenders with a firm hand in accordance with law,” the court observed.

Case

The court was hearing a plea filed by a detenu who had sought quashing of the detention order arguing that the grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier; and that the appellant, being a semi-literate person, was not supplied with translated copies of the grounds of detention.

The court observed that no compelling reason were recorded so as to justify the invocation of extraordinary power of preventive detention against a person who was already behind bars and available to the authorities.

It noted that the detention order wrongly mentions five Sections of the BNS whereas the FIR contains only three sections. The bench held that the error demonstrated that the detaining authority had acted mechanically on the police dossier without applying its independent mind.

Observing that constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention are mandatory and not directory, and any infraction thereof vitiates the detention, the court quashed the detention order.